I was talking to a friend of mine this past Sunday and he mentioned that in the BX there was a sign posted that stated that GameStop in AAFES locations wouldn't be selling the latest Medal of Honor video game. My immediate reaction was..."Well that's stupid." That was, admittedly, knee-jerk because I feel that way about anything that's banned.
I knew that the game's plot takes place in Afghanistan but I still thought that it should be alright. So I came home and Googled it to find out more information about the reason behind it. What I hadn't thought about was the multiplayer portion of the game. When I read that the multiplayer portion of the game has people take the role of Taliban killing American soldiers (and vice versus) it occurred to me that the creators had crossed a line. Yes there are other games where you can take the role of the "baddies" and kill American soldiers but those game are almost always fictional wars (such as Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1 & 2) or they are past wars like WWII (such as earlier installments of the Medal of Honor series). This to my knowledge would be the first game that allows you to take the role of a "baddy" while the depicted conflict is still ongoing.
It struck me though that this might be bigger than a simple ban of a game. I wonder if this doesn't say something of our society and it's morals? We can debate all day and night about whether it was right to invade Iraq or not. However, I think that with some minor, insignificant exceptions we are in agreement that the war in Afghanistan was a necessity after the attacks of 9-11. That said, I can't help to wonder what type of person thought...gee wouldn't it be great to take the role of a Taliban during multiplayer? Also, why didn't anyone through the chain of decision makers that the game idea passed through stop it? I'm still of the opinion that this title shouldn't have been banned. Though, I believe that someone at EA should have halted the multiplayer portion of the game. I hope and pray that this game will generate very few sales. I'm afraid though that it will sell millions of copies. I'm a HUGE gamer and I will not be buying this game out of respect for our fallen and their families. I hope and pray that our society will send EA a strong message by refusing to purchase this game. If you're in the market for a FPS game well take your dollars and purchase the latest installment of the Call of Duty series. They've just released a new game at the same time as MoH. Use you conscience and heart.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Couldn't get more out of touch if they were living on the moon.
Our federal government is completely out of touch with the average American. Just this past week we witnessed that they invited a commedian, Colbert, to TESTIFY to the congress about a subject he is no expert on. Adding insult to injury Colbert testified in CHARACTER! So while average Americans are having trouble making ends meet (to quote a woman at a recent Obama town hall event going back to beans and hot dogs) our Congress is spending OUR money listening to a comedy stick preformed live for their benefit. UNBELIEVABLE! Furthermore, we watch as they ursurp our rights to privacy by now pushing for laws that will allow them to spy on American citizens internet activity. It's not enough that Obama pushed and recieved the ability to spy on our cell phone calls. Why do I use the word SPY? Because they don't need a warrant to be able to do listen in to your cell phones and monitor your internet activity. So where are all those people who took issue with the Bush Admin using warrentless wire taps to listen in on phone calls to foreign locations?
Monday, July 19, 2010
Some thoughts about unemployment and stimulus.
Be warned there is some math below.
I got thinking about the stimulus program and the unemployment numbers. Here is what I thought about....
*Note: for simplicity sake I'm keeping the numbers round.*
The average life expectancy in the USA is about 85 years old.
The approximate population of the USA is about 300 million.
Lets say that age group of the typical full time employee falls between 18 to 65.
So we can formulate that the approximate number of Americans that falls inside that full time employment group is roughly half the population. So approximately 150 million people.
Now the unemployment number (when you include those that are no longer looking for work, with those that lost full time employment and are working part time, with those that are collecting unemployment) is about 15%.
So the number of unemployed Americans is about 22.5 million.
Now the Obama/Democrat stimulus program (mind you not counting the second program and Bush's program) is somewhere around 1 trillion US$.
This stimulus program was specifically created to "save or create" jobs.
If one divides the 1 trillion US$ by the number of unemployed Americans of 22.5 million a shocking number appears.
That number is 44,444.44 US$. That's a typical middle income family in America right now. If it so happens that the home has 2 unemployed Americans the number of course doubles to 88,888.00 US$. While the first number is a moderate middle income lifestyle (maybe only 1 new car and 1 old car in the driveway instead of 2) the $88k is a pretty comfortable income for a typical family of 4 or 5.
So that said...I'm having a REALLY tough time understanding what happened to all the money. How is it we are still "officially" sitting at nearly 10% unemployment? This is a year and a half since Obama signed it into law. He could have taken that 1 trillion US$ and paid every single unemployed America a living wage and given the entire economy breathing room and a chance to recover. No loans or mortgages would have slipped into default causing the FDIC insured banks to choke on their debts forcing them to be stingy with business loans or in some cases failing. The economy would've rebounded because Americans would still be spending money. Sure some economic restriction would have still occurred but right now I'd bet we'd be looking at MUCH lower unemployment. Plus the government would REALLY be handing out $44k. You forget that they'd take in about 25% in taxes and about 7.5% in FICA. So here's another MATH equation to look at.
If out of the 1 trillion US$ that the government handed out in my hypothetical as salaries for the unemployed they took back 32.5% in taxes and FICA. Then they'd get back about 325 billion US$. WOW! Imaging that. In effect we could have shave a third of the stimulus program right at the beginning.
Anyways those are my thoughts. What are yours?
I got thinking about the stimulus program and the unemployment numbers. Here is what I thought about....
*Note: for simplicity sake I'm keeping the numbers round.*
The average life expectancy in the USA is about 85 years old.
The approximate population of the USA is about 300 million.
Lets say that age group of the typical full time employee falls between 18 to 65.
So we can formulate that the approximate number of Americans that falls inside that full time employment group is roughly half the population. So approximately 150 million people.
Now the unemployment number (when you include those that are no longer looking for work, with those that lost full time employment and are working part time, with those that are collecting unemployment) is about 15%.
So the number of unemployed Americans is about 22.5 million.
Now the Obama/Democrat stimulus program (mind you not counting the second program and Bush's program) is somewhere around 1 trillion US$.
This stimulus program was specifically created to "save or create" jobs.
If one divides the 1 trillion US$ by the number of unemployed Americans of 22.5 million a shocking number appears.
That number is 44,444.44 US$. That's a typical middle income family in America right now. If it so happens that the home has 2 unemployed Americans the number of course doubles to 88,888.00 US$. While the first number is a moderate middle income lifestyle (maybe only 1 new car and 1 old car in the driveway instead of 2) the $88k is a pretty comfortable income for a typical family of 4 or 5.
So that said...I'm having a REALLY tough time understanding what happened to all the money. How is it we are still "officially" sitting at nearly 10% unemployment? This is a year and a half since Obama signed it into law. He could have taken that 1 trillion US$ and paid every single unemployed America a living wage and given the entire economy breathing room and a chance to recover. No loans or mortgages would have slipped into default causing the FDIC insured banks to choke on their debts forcing them to be stingy with business loans or in some cases failing. The economy would've rebounded because Americans would still be spending money. Sure some economic restriction would have still occurred but right now I'd bet we'd be looking at MUCH lower unemployment. Plus the government would REALLY be handing out $44k. You forget that they'd take in about 25% in taxes and about 7.5% in FICA. So here's another MATH equation to look at.
If out of the 1 trillion US$ that the government handed out in my hypothetical as salaries for the unemployed they took back 32.5% in taxes and FICA. Then they'd get back about 325 billion US$. WOW! Imaging that. In effect we could have shave a third of the stimulus program right at the beginning.
Anyways those are my thoughts. What are yours?
Thursday, July 15, 2010
The NAACP denounces racism in the Tea Party?
The NAACP is stating that there are racists in the Tea Party....OK...I'm sure there are but that isn't the point of the Tea Party. Does the NAACP think there aren't racist in their ranks? Oh wait ACTUALLY they know there are because back in 2000 Mr. Mfume suspended the Dallas branch President Lee Alcorn for his anti-semetic remarks. In fact it's a statical probability that any large collection of people is going to have some racists in it. This doesn't make the group racists though. We need to base the group by it's desired goals and actions as a group not by individuals. Take for example the Catholic Church, or any church, do you really think that there isn't at least one racist sitting in the pews during Sunday service? Yet I don't think anyone would say the Catholic Church is racist or has racist goals.
This declaration by the NAACP is frivolous and is a distraction from the real issues being raised by honest people. Especially when one considers the make up of the Tea Party. In general the Tea Party is made of non-affiliated independent voters that were not activists. Yes most of the party is white but the % of black Americans is close to 10% to 12%. So by porportion we'd expect the Tea Party to be less than 10% black as we know that it's unlikely that ALL black would be of the mind set of the Tea Party goals. In addition, it's highly likely that a large percentage of Tea Party members actually voted for Obama since Obama got a large percentage of the "Independent" vote.
Just for a kicker, lets not forget that I never remember hearing a peep out of the NAACP last August regarding the beating of a black man by SEIU members in front of a St. Louis town hall meeting. Why did Kenneth Gladney get beaten? Because he was a black man handing out Don't Tread On Me flags out infront of the town hall meeting. It was my understanding that the NAACP was suppose to be for equality of all people. If that's so then why not Kenneth's equality to believe in what he believes and protest what he chooses to protest without being molested? Where was the declaration against SEIU? Oh wait, I forgot, Zaki Baruti, President of the Universal African Peoples, at a ralley organized by the NAACP IN SUPPORT OF THE PEOPLE THAT BEAT Kenneth Gladney stated "That we call him (Kenneth Gladney) a Negro in the fact that he works not for our people but against our people. In the old days we call him Uncle Tom. I just got to say that.". Sooooo, wait, huh? What? Really? Direct off the home page of the NAACP "Founded in 1909, the NAACP is the nation's oldest and largest civil rights organization." Sooo ummm freedom of speech isn't a CIVIL RIGHT? To freely organize to protest in a civil manner isn't a CIVIL RIGHT? To go one step further this Mr. Baruti made a false statement during an interview on the O'Reilly Factor. He said "in the buttons he was selling they had pictures of President Obama in white face with blood coming out of his eyes and his mouth which is a character that reflects back to the Jim Crowe era." Either Mr. Baruti is completely disconnected from reality or he knows he's lying because the characture of Obama that he describes is not white face but it's Obama made up like the Joker in the last Batman movie. In addition, I'm not claiming to be all knowing in things that are racist, have you ever heard of white face? I've heard of black face. I've never heard of white face. I even googled white face to see what it offered...nothing on the subject of racism. Sooooo ummmm huh? Clearly, Mr. Baruti is cluless and it's a shame that the NAACP saw fit to have this man speak for them and support people that denied Mr. Gladney's civil rights.
Oh yes and one last point to make, before ANYONE at the NAACP or afflialated with the NAACP goes around calling someone an Uncle Tom they'd better think about their own history. Consider that the slave owning south was controlled by the Democratic Party, consider that the Civil War was about Democrats wanting to keep the southern states slave states, consider that the Democrat Party worked with the KKK and Red Shirts to keep blacks and Republicans from voting in southern states (in some cases it actually involved open combat with armed militias), consider that the Jim Crow Laws were brought about by the Democrat Party during the Redeemer Era, consider that the Democrat Party actively fought against the de-segregation of the south, consider that the Democrat Party filibustered against the Civil Rights legislation. Now consider that the NAACP is VERY cozy with the Democrat Party. Tell me again who's the Uncle Tom?
As Jesus said...Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Somehow I'm thinking that the evidence shows the NAACP is not without sin when it comes to racism.
This declaration by the NAACP is frivolous and is a distraction from the real issues being raised by honest people. Especially when one considers the make up of the Tea Party. In general the Tea Party is made of non-affiliated independent voters that were not activists. Yes most of the party is white but the % of black Americans is close to 10% to 12%. So by porportion we'd expect the Tea Party to be less than 10% black as we know that it's unlikely that ALL black would be of the mind set of the Tea Party goals. In addition, it's highly likely that a large percentage of Tea Party members actually voted for Obama since Obama got a large percentage of the "Independent" vote.
Just for a kicker, lets not forget that I never remember hearing a peep out of the NAACP last August regarding the beating of a black man by SEIU members in front of a St. Louis town hall meeting. Why did Kenneth Gladney get beaten? Because he was a black man handing out Don't Tread On Me flags out infront of the town hall meeting. It was my understanding that the NAACP was suppose to be for equality of all people. If that's so then why not Kenneth's equality to believe in what he believes and protest what he chooses to protest without being molested? Where was the declaration against SEIU? Oh wait, I forgot, Zaki Baruti, President of the Universal African Peoples, at a ralley organized by the NAACP IN SUPPORT OF THE PEOPLE THAT BEAT Kenneth Gladney stated "That we call him (Kenneth Gladney) a Negro in the fact that he works not for our people but against our people. In the old days we call him Uncle Tom. I just got to say that.". Sooooo, wait, huh? What? Really? Direct off the home page of the NAACP "Founded in 1909, the NAACP is the nation's oldest and largest civil rights organization." Sooo ummm freedom of speech isn't a CIVIL RIGHT? To freely organize to protest in a civil manner isn't a CIVIL RIGHT? To go one step further this Mr. Baruti made a false statement during an interview on the O'Reilly Factor. He said "in the buttons he was selling they had pictures of President Obama in white face with blood coming out of his eyes and his mouth which is a character that reflects back to the Jim Crowe era." Either Mr. Baruti is completely disconnected from reality or he knows he's lying because the characture of Obama that he describes is not white face but it's Obama made up like the Joker in the last Batman movie. In addition, I'm not claiming to be all knowing in things that are racist, have you ever heard of white face? I've heard of black face. I've never heard of white face. I even googled white face to see what it offered...nothing on the subject of racism. Sooooo ummmm huh? Clearly, Mr. Baruti is cluless and it's a shame that the NAACP saw fit to have this man speak for them and support people that denied Mr. Gladney's civil rights.
Oh yes and one last point to make, before ANYONE at the NAACP or afflialated with the NAACP goes around calling someone an Uncle Tom they'd better think about their own history. Consider that the slave owning south was controlled by the Democratic Party, consider that the Civil War was about Democrats wanting to keep the southern states slave states, consider that the Democrat Party worked with the KKK and Red Shirts to keep blacks and Republicans from voting in southern states (in some cases it actually involved open combat with armed militias), consider that the Jim Crow Laws were brought about by the Democrat Party during the Redeemer Era, consider that the Democrat Party actively fought against the de-segregation of the south, consider that the Democrat Party filibustered against the Civil Rights legislation. Now consider that the NAACP is VERY cozy with the Democrat Party. Tell me again who's the Uncle Tom?
As Jesus said...Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Somehow I'm thinking that the evidence shows the NAACP is not without sin when it comes to racism.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Obama the Thug?
If you know anything about Big O you know he's got very close connections to labour unions and specifically SEIU. In case you didn't know about his connections to SEIU here's a brief history...
This time they're showing up at the private residences of private citizens and intimidating them. See Video 1 and see Video 2. It wasn't a small group. Video 1 shows SEIU, using 14 buses showing up at Mr. Greg Baer's home with 500 members. Mr. Baer's teenage son was the only one home at the time. Mr. Baer was attending his younger child's baseball game. On returning to his house he saw the mob out in front of his home. With his younger son in the car he decided to call the police. The police told him they wouldn't disperse the crowd for fear that the mob might turn violent. Imagine yourself as Mr. Baer, you've got your youngest son in the car with you, your oldest trapped in your home by a mob of 500 people. What do you do? Mr. Baer decided he had to get his son out of potential danger. He politely moved through the crowd asking people to please move out of his way he had to get to his home because his teenage son was in there.
Why protest outside Mr. Baer's home? Well he works for Bank of America. It just so happens that SEIU is in debt to Bank of America for 4 million dollars. Huh? It also just so happens that SEIU gave almost 70 million dollars to the Democrat Party. Huh? History is full of examples where evil men use groups to intimidate private citizens. Hitler used similar cut-outs/thug groups to intimidate people. Either Obama stands up and denounces SEIU or he's in agreement with their tactics. So far Mr. Obama has remained silent. So far Mr. Obama has shown his silent alliance with SEIU by giving it's leadership principle roles in our government. Mr. Obama has very little time left in my opinion to separate himself from this group or he risks wearing the label of Nazi. This kind of intimidation can not stand. If Mr. Obama won't denounce SEIU it is time for all you fence sitters out their to get over your poor choice of voting for Obama. Realize you made a mistake voting for this man. Time to take a stand against this sort of intimidation. This is UN-AMERICAN. Is this the HOPE and CHANGE Obama promised us? HOPE you won't have a crowd of thugs show up at your home? Time to CHANGE residence so your family is safe from thugs?
- Obama the candidate addresses SEIU meeting in 2006 (here's a 6 minute video of the address). OK so if you've watched the video you're thinking NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS.
- Obama and Andy Stern have a close relationship. Andy Stern is the head of SEIU. In fact he thinks so highly of Andy Stern he's appointed him to head the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. (here's my proof)
- Here's another video of Obama at another SEIU meeting. CLICK HERE. Please note here Obama says to the SEIU crowd "Your agenda has been my agenda..." OH REALLY? He goes on to say "before debating health care I talked to Andy Stern and SEIU members." Fantastic.
- So was it your agenda Mr. Obama when SEIU thugs beat a black man on the street? Here's the video. Did you, Mr. Obama, talk to Andy Stern before or after they beat Kenneth Gladney. SEIU claims about the attack are on their website click here to read it. Even though there is video and about a dozen witnesses SEIU put up a bunch of lies on their site. Here's an interview of Kenneth Gladney explaining how the whole attack started click here.
- Want to see more videos of SEIU members intimidating people? Click here and watch a video about SEIU members threatening a 16 year-old girl. Then there are plenty of other videos of SEIU intimidation click here. I could go on and on and on. That's enough for now I think. My point is made I believe....SEIU frequently practices intimidation and threatens people to bully them to bend to their will.
This time they're showing up at the private residences of private citizens and intimidating them. See Video 1 and see Video 2. It wasn't a small group. Video 1 shows SEIU, using 14 buses showing up at Mr. Greg Baer's home with 500 members. Mr. Baer's teenage son was the only one home at the time. Mr. Baer was attending his younger child's baseball game. On returning to his house he saw the mob out in front of his home. With his younger son in the car he decided to call the police. The police told him they wouldn't disperse the crowd for fear that the mob might turn violent. Imagine yourself as Mr. Baer, you've got your youngest son in the car with you, your oldest trapped in your home by a mob of 500 people. What do you do? Mr. Baer decided he had to get his son out of potential danger. He politely moved through the crowd asking people to please move out of his way he had to get to his home because his teenage son was in there.
Why protest outside Mr. Baer's home? Well he works for Bank of America. It just so happens that SEIU is in debt to Bank of America for 4 million dollars. Huh? It also just so happens that SEIU gave almost 70 million dollars to the Democrat Party. Huh? History is full of examples where evil men use groups to intimidate private citizens. Hitler used similar cut-outs/thug groups to intimidate people. Either Obama stands up and denounces SEIU or he's in agreement with their tactics. So far Mr. Obama has remained silent. So far Mr. Obama has shown his silent alliance with SEIU by giving it's leadership principle roles in our government. Mr. Obama has very little time left in my opinion to separate himself from this group or he risks wearing the label of Nazi. This kind of intimidation can not stand. If Mr. Obama won't denounce SEIU it is time for all you fence sitters out their to get over your poor choice of voting for Obama. Realize you made a mistake voting for this man. Time to take a stand against this sort of intimidation. This is UN-AMERICAN. Is this the HOPE and CHANGE Obama promised us? HOPE you won't have a crowd of thugs show up at your home? Time to CHANGE residence so your family is safe from thugs?
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
"The flag should never be used as wearing apparel,..."
According to U.S. Code Title 4 Chapter 1 Section 8d "The flag should never be used as wearing apparel,...". While I understand the desire or intent is patriotic it is disrespectful to the flag to wear it as apparel. So those children over at the Live Oak High School may have intended to show patriotism by wearing apparel to school depicting the American flag it in essence is a form of disrepect to the flag. While I don't agree with the schools reaction I do think there could've been a better method to expressing their patriotism without disrespecting the flag.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Ex Parte Quirin
If you don't know what Ex Parte Quirin refers to let me explain it in simple terms. This is a case in which the US Supreme Court upheld the jurisdiction of military tribunals over eight NAZI saboteurs. All eight were found guilty and convicted. Six of the eight were executed by electrocution. It's relevant to our discussion that one of those six was German born but US naturalized citizen (at age ten). If we have precedent of putting US citizens in front of military tribunals and furthermore executing them why are we putting non-citizen and citizen saboteurs into civilian courts? Both Bush and Obama have completely screwed this up. There is absolutely no excuse for having detained terrorists for years without getting in front of a military tribunal. Just as there is no excuse for putting terrorists through our civil courts systems. Faisal Shahzad is a modern day equivalent to a NAZI saboteurs. His attempted attack on Times Square would have killed Americans, hurt our economy and created fear and terror in America. We keep calling people like Shahzad as terrorists. Maybe we should begin "labeling" them as saboteurs instead. Shahzad as a saboteur would not have the same rights as he currently has in civilian courts. The efficiency of a military tribunal would be quick and just. Follow by an execution if found guilty. No more weeks, months, years of propaganda and consuming millions of our tax dollars. Time for Americans (including you President Obama) to find our backbones and begin to treat this war as a war. We didn't soft glove the NAZI saboteurs we shouldn't be soft gloving Muslim saboteurs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)